Logical Reasoning

PT14 · S4 · Q14 The commissioner has announced that

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

The commissioner has announced that Judge Khalid, who was on the seven-member panel appointed to resolve the Amlec labor dispute, will have sole responsibility for resolving the Simdon labor dispute.

Conclusion

The two sides are justified in the confidence they have expressed in the reasonableness and fairness of the arbitrator.

rephrase: the arbitrator is reasonable and fair

Evidence

The arbitrator was on a panel that resolved the Amlec dispute.

The decision reached by the Amlec panel was reasonable and fair.

Evaluate

Whenever we're doing Parallel Flaw, we have high on our radar the top 6 famous flaws (Nec vs. Suff, Causal, Part vs. Whole, Sampling, Unproven vs. Proven False, Ad Hominem).

When we see an argument recycling a trait, "reasonable and fair", in both the evidence and the conclusion, we get on high alert for Part vs. Whole, since that flaw is basically saying, (or vice versa)

This would be a Whole to Part move. The author is thinking that since this Judge Khalid was on a panel that was reasonable and fair, that shows that Judge Khalid is reasonable and fair.

We'd be able to object to this argument by saying,

Goal

Look for an answer saying, .

14.

Which one of the following contains flawed reasoning most parallel to that contained in the passage?

  1. Representing the school board, Marcia

    Different Flaw

    Combining these two facts, Ms. B acted as rep for the school board. + Act as rep for school board → elected member we can infer Ms. B is an elected member. The only flaw here is that the list we're saying she appears on is a list of recently elected members. We know she's an elected member, but we don't know for sure that she's a recently elected member. However, that's not the same as a Whole to Part flaw.

    1% picked this

  2. Alan Caldalf, who likes being

    Different Flaw

    This is committing the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, in which an argument provides a conditional premise but then the author applies that conditional rule in some illegal backwards or negated fashion. We have a rule that says Good pediatrician → like young children And this argument is saying, "Since Mr. C likes young children, he will be a good pediatrician". That is an illegal reversal, but not the Whole to Part flaw we're looking for.

    13% picked this

  3. Jorge Diaz is a teacher

    Different Flaw

    This is sort of committing the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, in which an argument provides a conditional premise but then the author applies that conditional rule in some illegal backwards or negated fashion. We wouldn't naturally think of the first sentence as a conditional, but if we wanted to, it would be saying, Conducting faculty → excellent teacher And this argument is saying, "Since Mr. D is an excellent teacher, then he must be part of the conducting faculty". That is an illegal reversal, but not the Whole to Part flaw we're looking for. Had the argument said, "The faculty at school X is known for its excellent teaching. Mr. D is part of the faculty at school X. Thus, he is undoubtedly an excellent teacher.", that would better match the Whole to Part move.

    11% picked this

  4. Correct

    Ula Borg, who has sold

    Why this is right

    Correct This is giving us our Whole to Part move: because person X is part of a group that had trait A, then person X must have trait A. Because Ula is part of a group (Arcande Realty) that had trait A (sold fewer houses last year than in the previous year), Ula must have trait A (Ula must have sold fewer houses last year than in the previous year). Because Khalid is part of a group (Amlec Panel) that had trait A (reasonable and fair), Khalid must have trait A (reasonable and fair).

    Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    48% picked this

  5. The members of the local

    Bad Evidence Match

    This is pretty tempting, because we do move from a premise about a group to a conclusion about an individual. But because we're told that the group (the local historical society) unanimously voted in favor of building the landmark, there wouldn't be any Whole to Part flaw, because every member of that group did vote in favor. The flaw here would be a different one, assuming that if someone gave landmark status to one building they would surely give it to a different building as well.

    27% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free